Effective January 1, 2018 Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. has merged into, and will now practice law as Houston Harbaugh, P.C. Visit Houston Harbaugh here and learn more about all the ways we can serve you.

On behalf of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. posted in Business Litigation on Monday, January 19, 2015.

In Groupe SEB United States, Inc. v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 23785 (3.d Cir, 2014) the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed a District Court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction against a household consumer product brand for false advertising and violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Plaintiff, SEB, sells various consumer products, including steam irons under the Rowenta brand name, namely the Rowenta Focus and the Rowenta Steamium. The Defendant, Euro-Pro, sells a competing brand of steam irons under the Shark brand name. The dispute involved in this case arises from the advertising claims on the packing of the two competing Shark irons, the "Shark 405" and "Shark 505". The Third Circuit ultimately concluded that the District Court was correct when it concluded that Shark's advertising claims were false and that it violated the Lanham Act.

The Shark 405 packaging included two advertising claims that were challenged. First, the text on the packaging asserts that the Shark 405 offers "MORE POWERFUL STEAM vs. Rowenta®†† at half the price." The "††" characters refer to a fine-print footnote on the bottom of the packaging, which states that the claim is "based on independent comparative steam burst testing to Rowenta DW5080 (grams/shot)." Text on another part of the packaging also asserts that the Shark 405 delivers "#1 MOST POWERFUL STEAM*." Again, there is fine print that states the Shark 405 "* offers more grams per minute (maximum steam setting while bursting before water spots appear) when compared to leading competition in the same price range, at time of printing." The packaging for the Shark 505 made substantially the same claims.

SEB (Rowenta) sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Euro-Pro (Shark) from making the claims on the Shark 405 and Shark 505. In defending the claim, Shark introduced as evidence a consumer survey report that showed consumers do not have a uniform understanding of the meaning of the phrase "more powerful steam." The District Court concluded that SEB established that the Shark claims are literally flase and that SEB demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm without the injunction. Specifically, the injunction required Euro-Pro to place stickers over the claims on the Shark packaging and remove the hang tags from the steam irons (which also contained false claims).

In affirming the District Court, the Third Circuit held that, "[i]n deciding whether an advertising claim is literally false, a court must decide first whether the claim conveys an unambiguous message and second whether that unambiguous message is false." The Court went on to note that a "literally false" message may be conveyed explicitly or implicitly, but unless the claim is unambiguous it cannot be literally false. In this case, the Third Circuit affirmed that when a product's packaging includes an advertising claim and unambiguously defines a claim term, the packaging's definition of the claim term applies to the claim's explicit message. Thus, the Court held, "what a product's packaging says a claim term means is in fact part of the claim's explicit message. If that explicit message is both unambiguous and false, the claim is literally false."

Both the District Court and Third Circuit rejected the consumer survey evidence offered by Euro-Pro in this matter. Because the claim in this case involved literal falsity, the Court affirmed that no evidence of actual consumer deception is necessary. Accordingly, a court is not required to use consumer evidence to define terms in advertising when their definitions are unambiguous by the terms of the advertising.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath's article "The New Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016" was published in the 2016 Fall/Winter edition of USLAW Magazine.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath's ed a CLE on the New Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 for the Western Pennsylvania chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel

Firm shareholder Alan Miller was named as the 2017 Best Lawyer Environmental Litigator of the Year and also was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Insurance Coverage.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Intellectual Property Litigation; firm shareholder Anthony Picadio was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Business Litigation; firm associate Brandon McCullough was named a 2016 Super Lawyer Rising Star in Insurance Coverage.

On May 25, 2016, Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski presented "Voir Dire and Jury Selection" with Honorable Ronald Folina, at the Crowne Plaza Pittsburgh, as part of the National Business Institute's Continuing Education Programs.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath and firm associate led and presented at a 2-hour CLE on "Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA): The New Federal Private Cause of Action for Trade Secret Misappropriation."

Firm shareholder Kelly Williams spoke at the USLAW Business to Business Litigation Exchange in San Francisco on Prosecuting and Defending Business Defamation and Commercial Disparagement Claims by or Against Competitors Including Social Media Issues.

Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski spoke on "Wacky Pennsylvania Construction Laws" at the U.S. Law Network Spring Conference in Rancho Palos Verdes California, which took place on April 7-9, 2016.

Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski was selected to serve a two year term as Education Coordinator for the Construction Law Section of the U.S. Law Network.

Firm shareholder Bridget Gillespie and firm associate Brandon McCullough served as Regional Editors and Co-Authors of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the DRI Duty to Defend Compendium which was published in February 2016.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is for educational and informative purposes. Neither it nor the website is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. It is not to be taken as legal advice on which you should rely, and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. If you require legal advice, we recommend that you contact a licensed attorney who can provide advice based on your specific factual circumstances, the jurisdiction you are in, and the appropriate law for your situation. Please do not send us confidential information unless we have specifically requested that you do so. To the extent that any prior firm results are discussed, there is no guarantee that such results will be obtained in the future. Finally, other than the PSMN® website, we have no control over the sites that we link to, so we make no representations about the content or quality of these external sites.

Office Location And Contact Information

Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C., is a Pittsburgh law firm that serves clients primarily in Pennsylvania, but also in other jurisdictions on a special admission basis.